Income Tax : Explore the implications of the PCIT Vs I.A. Hydro Energy case regarding loan conversion to equity under Section 56(2)(viib) of th...
Income Tax : The issue involves a subscription amount of Rs. 1 Crores, with a dividend rate of 0.10% over a tenure of 20 years. This brief exam...
Income Tax : Unlock the complexities of development rights and their tax implications under India's Income Tax Act, 1961. Delve into Section 56...
Income Tax : Budget 2023 brings non-resident investors within the ambit of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act to eliminate tax avoidance possibilit...
Income Tax : Detailed analysis of DCIT vs Tangi Facility Solutions Pvt Ltd case by ITAT Chennai regarding taxation of bonus shares under Income...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules Section 56(2)(vii) inapplicable to non-residents, deleting Rs. 9.31 Cr addition for APL Logistics Vascor Automoti...
Income Tax : Search warrant is issued regarding premises and not necessarily regarding an assessee, and a common search warrant and panchnama i...
Income Tax : Detailed analysis of Chandarani N. Goyal Vs ITO case where Mumbai ITAT ruled that money received as a security deposit, if refunde...
Income Tax : Explore ITAT Chennai's ruling in Smt. Chandrasekaran Valarmathi vs. ITO case. Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act won'...
Detailed analysis of DCIT vs Tangi Facility Solutions Pvt Ltd case by ITAT Chennai regarding taxation of bonus shares under Income Tax Act. Understand ITAT’s ruling and implications.
ITAT Delhi rules Section 56(2)(vii) inapplicable to non-residents, deleting Rs. 9.31 Cr addition for APL Logistics Vascor Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Read full order and analysis.
Explore the implications of the PCIT Vs I.A. Hydro Energy case regarding loan conversion to equity under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, highlighting the choice of valuation method with the assessee.
Search warrant is issued regarding premises and not necessarily regarding an assessee, and a common search warrant and panchnama issued against multiple assesses operating from the same premises are justifiable.
Detailed analysis of Chandarani N. Goyal Vs ITO case where Mumbai ITAT ruled that money received as a security deposit, if refunded, is not taxable under section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
The issue involves a subscription amount of Rs. 1 Crores, with a dividend rate of 0.10% over a tenure of 20 years. This brief examines the tax implications and regulatory considerations under the Indian Income Tax Act associated with this transaction.
Explore ITAT Chennai’s ruling in Smt. Chandrasekaran Valarmathi vs. ITO case. Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act won’t apply when property is purchased for business use of a partnership firm.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of expenditure towards helper allowance claimed as deduction u/s. 10(14)(i) of the Income Tax Act rightly sustained as no supporting documents submitted.
Explore the ITAT Mumbai decision in Rekha Singh vs ITO, directing the consideration of stamp duty value on the date of allotment for Section 56(2)(vii)(b) purposes. Detailed analysis and implications.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act on account of difference between circle rate and actual amount paid for purchase of land as the land in question was a capital asset.
